Have you ever heard of Asperger's Syndrome?

posted 22-Apr-2008 10:23pm

Yes, I've heard of it. I have a vague concept of what it is. Though I could care less because 1) neither me nor someone that I know have it and 2) that psychologists will always make up bullcrap syndromes and exaggerated the number of people have it.

In any case, upon taking this stupid test which is 5+ minutes of my life that I will never get back:

You have answered inconsistently on too many control-questions

k. Well fudge you too.

(reply to southernyankee) posted 22-Apr-2008 10:36pm

>
> You have answered inconsistently on too many control-questions
>
> k. Well fudge you too.
>

People have a right to change their mind every so often, don't they?

they

posted 22-Apr-2008 11:00pm

I sometimes suspect my daughter could have something like it at least. I have a lot of these tendencies too.

RGirl

posted 22-Apr-2008 11:54pm

Yes and they believe one of my nephews has it.

Melf

posted 23-Apr-2008 3:54am

I've heard of it I but don't know much about it.

icurok

posted 23-Apr-2008 4:36am

I've heard about it and I know someone who has been diagnosed with it. To be honest, I'm wary of it as a term. Similar to the way dyslexia is used as a diagnosis because it's easier than telling someone that their kid is crap at reading, I think diagnoses (and especially self-diagnoses) of Asperger's is simply easier than saying that you're a misanthropic, anti-social prick.

You know what really got me about that quiz? It's a test to see if you might have Asperger's Syndrome, there are 150 questions and "Are you easily distracted?" is at number 138. 138?! Do you think if you genuinely were easily distracted that you would've made it that far?

ausfox

posted 23-Apr-2008 4:43am

I have heard about it, read a book about it and have a cousin who has slight Asperger's

bill

posted 23-Apr-2008 7:41am

I know a couple parents with a kid who has it. The guy who wrote BitTorrent has it.

I secretly thinks it's kind of cool. I'm sure it's not really, but the idea of not having to waste time with all those emotional "vibes" holds some appeal for me.

I sometimes toy with the idea of writing a short story set in a future where the majority of people have Asperger's... implying that it's actually some sort of evolutionary step.

Irene007

posted 23-Apr-2008 9:34am

Yes, why? And according to this test, I'm Neurotypical... Somehow, that sounds kinda bland, wouldn't you say?

Crayons

(reply to icurok) posted 23-Apr-2008 4:51pm

Well the questions are randomized, so sometimes it just happens to be at the end.

Melf

posted 23-Apr-2008 5:28pm

Oh my:

Your Aspie score: 128 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 58 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie

(reply to icurok) posted 23-Apr-2008 6:49pm

That's way off.

JessicaWoman99

posted 23-Apr-2008 6:57pm

No have not heard of this

icurok

(reply to LindaH) posted 24-Apr-2008 9:44am

Way off what? You honestly think people don't use self-diagnosis as a means to acquire a label on which to pin the blame for their failures?

(reply to icurok) posted 24-Apr-2008 11:45am

Sometimes they do. And I'm sure there's some non-aspies who do. Asperger's is real though, and your summary of them is off. Or are you think of people who are really misanthropic and anti social misusing "asperger's" to explain it?

(reply to LindaH) posted 24-Apr-2008 11:54am

Thank you, Linda, for your understanding. I often think that people with disabilities are discriminated against most in today's job market, and AS is one of the most misunderstood of all. It's like if you're in a wheelchair or on crutches, interviewers, supervisors and employment agency people will be a lot more likely to try to accommodate you/help you than if you LOOK "normal" and have some kind of "invisible" problem, even if you try to explain.

icurok

(reply to LindaH) posted 24-Apr-2008 12:19pm

I own a copy of the DSM-IV. I know what Asperger's is and what the symptoms are. One of the symptoms is "have difficulty learning social rules, cues, or nuances."

What I'm saying is that there's a difference between someone who can't pick up on social cues because their brain won't let them and someone who doesn't pick on social cues because they don't give a crap. In the latter case, using Asperger's becomes a method of justifying anti-social behaviour since one can place them blame on a label that is out of one's control.

(reply to icurok) posted 24-Apr-2008 12:24pm

Cool. I'm glad you know that it is real. I agree with you about people who use a DX as an excuse.

(reply to Galomorro) posted 24-Apr-2008 12:26pm

Your welcome.
I wish more people knew more about it.

Cleo

posted 24-Apr-2008 12:38pm

Biggles told me about this

bill

posted 24-Apr-2008 1:05pm

I got "neurotypical", but I only answers about 50 questions before I got sick of it and just clicked submit. From the way I was answering, I suspect I don't have it (for all the odd questions like "Do thumping noises make your arms fall off?", I was like, "um... no").

posted 24-Apr-2008 1:09pm

Your Aspie score: 125 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 86 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie

Biggles

posted 24-Apr-2008 3:07pm

I've heard and read quite a lot about it. My brother has a special interest in autism and works at a school for autistic children.

Your Aspie score: 34 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 161 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical

AQ-score: 9 of 50

(reply to LindaH) posted 24-Apr-2008 3:16pm

Well there are dozens of books out re the autism "spectrum" these days -- I get this detailed catalog in the mail because a few years ago I contributed some of my childhood and working experiences to a couple of books on AS. So if anyone is interested there should be at least several books out in the public library these days and in the larger bookstores, and lots of info and forums online.

Biggles

(reply to icurok) posted 24-Apr-2008 3:24pm

My brother (who teaches in a school for autistic children) has a lot of pupils who have been labelled autistic after they've been expelled from every school in the area. It's a good way for the authorities to find an excuse to palm them off on a special-needs school where violence and aggression is a bit more commonplace.

toxthexend

posted 24-Apr-2008 3:27pm

yeah...it's sad

thecomic22

posted 25-Apr-2008 12:01pm

I didnt click the link.

posted 26-Apr-2008 1:40am

I knew lightly of it. I know of one intelligent person who seems to have it, knows the condition exists, and thinks they don't have it. As regards the subject of 'reading people' they are a bit like a deaf person making the argument that music is some supernatural fantasy phenomenon which doesn't really exist except in the minds of the deluded. Oh well.

Ok, the test looks worthy of visting:
Your Aspie score: 84 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 131 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical

Not really sure what to make of it though. Perhaps the pdf explains more. Well, seeing the separate scores (kinda thought that's what was going on), it seem they've broken up critical criteria into aspie and normie means, so for instance I don't delve much into aspie communication behavior, but do well at normie communication. I'm disappointed that my talent scores aren't higher. Don't they know who I am?

Well now that it's sunk in, scanning other peoples results jives with what I'd expect them to get (even SY's inconsistency). ..except maybe Irene. I think she second guessed the quiz without giving any benefit of the doubt to her more dubious states.

(reply to Galomorro) posted 26-Apr-2008 2:52am

Because crutches aren't infectious. Communicating well with anyone with a mental disability entails briefly borrowing their picture of reality, something some may not wish to risk, in case it sticks or turns out to be unfavorable.

For a lot of people it's easier to give handouts than speak to the homeless. I gather for them that the attitude is 'best not to know what they think and feel, because it obviously doesn't work for them, and you don't want to go down that road with those thoughts yourself'. ..or it could just be practical timely callous self-interest.

I do talk with people, and yet do find their state of mind briefly contagious. Also, some people may simply not feel comfortably qualified to speak with anyone whose thought patterns are uncommon.

(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 26-Apr-2008 11:13am

Makes sense in a way... I do think more people in the professions of Rehab/Disability Employment and all Employment Agencies and job counselors should be more aware of all kinds of disabilities -- including neurological and learning disabilities -- than they used to be when I was looking for work. And they should take more time to seriously talk with their clients about the type of work they're looking for/do well. Instead of what some of 'em do -- the basic written test to see if you can spell, etc. enough to get by and a really brief chat at the end, only to say "We'll call if you something comes in" and the like. Many of the employees are practically kids and don't seem to have had much experience in the field. Some of my experiences...

(reply to Galomorro) posted 27-Apr-2008 1:52am

We're too specialised. Psychiatrists have been bought out by phramaceutical mfgrs. Unemployment counselors are lucky to be employed themselves. It comes down to who's interests are served (unless it's a charity), and it's not particularly to anyone's financial gain to see to it that people are employed doing things they are most suited to. Even charities maintain their funding by reporting on their success statistics, which is more likely to be 'hiring' than 'long term employment'.

I agree, it should be that way. Headhunters could be integrated with psychologists. Unfortunately their cut is contigent on salary, not appropriateness.

Over the decades we will most likely socialise unless society collapses, at which time psychologists probably will be more involved in job placement, which would likely be considered more of a therapeutic pastime then anyhow.

In my experiences with headhunters a dozen years ago I saw an opportnity for agencies to match personal temperaments to corporate cultures rather than merely match skills and education. It's to the benefit of both employee and employer to find employees that happily fit in well.

(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 27-Apr-2008 2:30am

"We're too specialised. Psychiatrists have been bought out by phramaceutical mfgrs."

Except that doesn't even add up. Psychiatrists charge $100 / hour. A bottle of pills would cost less than that, which we can safely assume won't be used up before the next session. I doubt the payola would outweigh the money they make from visits. Wouldn't pills compete with talk therapy? If (I use that term loosely) psychologists were to sell out their morals for money, selling out to pharmaceuticals wouldn't be the most effective move.

Headhunters could be integrated with psychologists.

Hym, great idea*. Except for that whole headhunters spend less than 2 minutes per person, whereas trained psychiatrist usually need hours an end to get a good picture of any individual -- thing.

"Over the decades we will most likely socialise unless society collapses, at which time psychologists probably will be more involved in job placement, which would likely be considered more of a therapeutic pastime then anyhow."

I see that you're at it again, predicting the future as always. Its a real shame I won't get to see you live long enough to see your predictions fail so that I can make snide remarks on how you were wrong because of your wrapped perception of how the real world works. Call me cynical, but doesn't the whole idea of smug self-appointed gurus who decide where everyone should work sound a bit creepy. Maybe not you because thats probably your dream job. I guess the next step is a board dedicated to arranging marriages based on psychological profiles.

Reminds me of an old running joke. Taking advice from your high school's guidance councilor on what should be your career means you're basically taking career advice from a guy whose career is a high school guidance councilor. Let that sink in for a second.

In my experiences with headhunters a dozen years ago I saw an opportnity for agencies to match personal temperaments to corporate cultures rather than merely match skills and education. It's to the benefit of both employee and employer to find employees that happily fit in well.

Theres already a thing for that. Its called monster.com. Perhaps you've heard of it.

(reply to southernyankee) posted 27-Apr-2008 4:11am

Psychologists and psychiatrists are not the same. The culture isn't so easily explained, but again, in institutions reports are made of who was prescribed what, not including things outside their typical practice like dietary consulting towards intake of thyroid precursors. Doctors don't have time to research, hence those ads "Tell your doctor about Brainhopia!". Psychiatrists may charge more for talk then a bottle of pills, but pharmaceuticals are a mega-billion industry with centralized hooks everywhere.

"trained psychiatrist usually need hours an end to get a good picture of any individual"
- Not only that, but potential employees probably don't want to be databased with any discriminatory criteria, like a preference to work barefoot and spend their time in brainstorming meetings at a coffee bar.

"but doesn't the whole idea of smug self-appointed gurus who decide where everyone should work sound a bit creepy"
- It's not like a 'psychic' prediction. Clearly it's a trend which increasingly includes both HS guidance counselors and R departments meddling in peoples lives with the latest personality profile tests.
Grade schools actually get financial compensation now for having teachers report pharmaceutically treatable disabilities in students. Testing and medication compliance are becoming increasingly compulsory. It's not like psychological placement is anything new anyhow. Back in the renaissance ones family had an idea who a kid might be most suited to apprentice with. Like everything else in life, it's just been more scientifically formulated and less personified. I wouldn't be surprised if video games of the future were connected online to hiring databases, covertly evaluating skill propensities.

..and again "but doesn't the whole idea of smug self-appointed gurus who decide where everyone should work sound a bit creepy"
Forty years ago we didn't go through agencies at all to land interviews, you just walked in when an ad interested you. You don't think your headhunter has already ruled you out submitting you for the job you'd like as golf caddy because they've determined for you that more money made with your accounting class skills (for you and them) outweighs your desire to be outside?

"I guess the next step is a board dedicated to arranging marriages based on psychological profiles."
Haven't you heard of online match-making services yet?
If you ask me, they don't have psychological profiling sufficiently down yet at all, but I'm sure they're working on improving that. Honestly, I think a dating service built into Netflix ("These available singles share the same tastes in movies as you do") would be more accurate than the 4'10, red hair, $27k/yr attempt at matchmaking done now.

"means you're basically taking career advice from a guy whose career is a high school guidance councilor"
That may be one of the more demanding jobs on the planet, though clearly it doesn't pay much. It could suggest though that they might not consider income as a criteria when offering career advice.

"Theres already a thing for that. Its called monster.com"
Last I looked at such sites half a dozen years ago, hoping for psychological/culture matching headhunter websites, they had no such features in place.

What are they like? Could they actually match employees who prefer to assist their co-workers with companies who look more at collaborative productivity than individual benchmarks, or find a company where people party together after work, and like to show off alternative cultures like punk and yoga, or even identify a company where diverse multiple job descriptions exist for anyone self-motivated to seek or create them? Could they even identify if the people you would be working with are upbeat or cynical, and zealously take their jobs personally or try to forget them when they get home. Are the people there more productive in the morings or afternoons. Do they prefer meetings or quiet. Is the workflow highly predictable or highly spontaneous. How is employee dating treated? How do the contractors get along with permanent staff. Do they mind contractors meeting outside work to form personal enterprises. Do the guys discuss sports and stocks or something else? Is the dominant mindset academic, engineering, administrative?

All these things can make or break if a person fits in, and yet I'm sure few of them are ever brought up before hiring.
However much employee/employer profile matching has become, I'm sure it's just a drop in the sea to what it can become.

A lot can become subjectively evident in an interview though. I recall being interviewed as a programmer for the United Way in SF, seated in lotus postures on the carpet. My second boss there interviewed me with a pig puppet with a shirt matching his own. At another insurance programming job I was introduced to the family matriarch who said they found their clients didn't appreciate AI code, and that any doctor who considers medicine 'an art'is a quack, that all practical insurable responses are already tightly defined. Way different job cultures. One was about enjoying and improving life for people, the other was about most efficiently making money of human resources.

I am of the opinion that life should be enjoyed, and that with each generation work is more of something we create to keep busy rather than actually need (or create because our economic model poorly mirrors post-industrial reality), thus, if we don't actually evolve towards psychologists helping people find the work they enjoy most, I consider us to be failing our potential. Of course that may happen. That was implied when I suggessted that society may even collapse.

Oh good grief. If my tone with you sounds any different, it's because I thought I was still talking to Galmorro. That explains why he pulled such a lycanthrope attitude change, or for that matter changed his position on desiring psychological-disability aware job counselling. I can't say my tone tone was all that different. I fell into standard rebuttal mode, just a bit more openly accomodating than surgically strategic.

~

Work took a turn for the worse this week. I had to spend half a week learning light-coating optics. CYM/RGB wasn't enough. I had to get into CIE, histograms, spectrograph density distributions, low/high/wide/narrowband/pass reflective/absorbive filter coatings, I thought triangulating from RGB light sources would be a much simpler matter. I've had to look up all sorts of exotic dichroic filtered bulbs, RGB color sensor CMOS chips using voltage, serial-code call/response, or pulse-frequency rgb-frequency encoding; and match the bandwidths of all this stuff. I was hoping to just paint three photodiodes and use three party bulbs. The chips only come in surface mount sizes (2.2x2.2mm with9 pins), so I'll have to learn micro-soldering, and they require synchronized timing chip code, which means tedious counting of asm instructions per procedure. and none of this stuff comes cheap for musical toy mfgr. It comes from space telescope sort of defense suppliers who require a phone call and your life history just to order a sample.

(reply to southernyankee) posted 27-Apr-2008 4:12am

(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 27-Apr-2008 11:35am

Yeah, like the last place I worked as a temp I wasn't the only one who didn't fit in well. This other non-Asian guy was, however, too young, too smart, and too political for the place. He was going back to college or something and knew the dump wasn't right for him so no problema. He'd say something re liberal politix occasionally, trying to chat with them, and they'd just sorta politely stare at him. Bunch of older women mainly who'd been there many years and were used to spending their weekends and some of their evenings working overtime. Some of us there, however, actually had lives... Some of the non-Asians in the company, especially some of the temps who were hoping to score a perm job, expressed the opinion that the company was ethnically biased in that they leaned toward hiring more Asians than other groups and that some family members got hired. So yeah, some companies are not right for certain temperaments -- but what'ya gonna do when there aren't enough jobs out there and just to be working at ALL is the primary concern. For a temp, it's trying to find a PERM job. So one applies to companies they may not care for as much as others they've seen, but out of desperation one thinks they'll maybe get used to it, and "it's only a job" and tells themselves they'd better not be too picky about it since jobs are so scarce.

(reply to Galomorro) posted 28-Apr-2008 8:42am

I worked as a teen at a Jack-in-the-Box. It was a thriving environment full of college students where I fit in well and enjoyed myself. Years later when my auto-gaage when bankrupt I briefly returned. It had become staffed by depressed non-career aspiring hispanics, and I did not fit in there at all. Some of the folks there felt they missed out, hearing my tales of the old days, and how we all usually gathered to drink beers and play guitar or Risk at one persons home or another after work.

(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 28-Apr-2008 11:24am

Work is such a huge part of most peoples' lives and for such a long time. Finding out what you want to do, how to go about getting the job, keeping it, and while there -- savings and investment plans best suited for each individual -- should be courses of study required all throughout middle school and high school since not everyone can go to college. Maybe counselors, teachers, etc. pay more attention to students and try to help them figure this stuff out nowadays; I sure hope so.

(reply to Galomorro) posted 29-Apr-2008 3:26am

I hear they actully get close to teaching some subjects I thought should be mandatory, but weren't touched in HS, like balancing a checkbook, understanding mortgages, basically a review of all that job related stuff you mentioned, plus the rules of getting grants, evaluating college costs, impact of lifestyle in the workplace, etc etc.

This sort of knowledge is one thing which separates the rich and the poor. The rich somehow pick up this stuff from family and peers, while the poor go on for years oblivious about things like money management.

There are other things like that too. Often poor cultures teach their children to just do what they're told, ie their homework (imagining that relates to success), while more affluent cultures know intuitively to always pass on education as part of recreation, and encourage entrepreneurial behavior in their kids.

I was really blown away when I lived in Oakland. The third graders could barely read. I took a bus from there to my job in Moraga, where the 6th graders were discussing SATs and choice of colleges. Three years age difference, ten years educational difference.

I've also run into people offended by the poor trying to sneak into their schools because they were 'too cheap' to pay higher property taxes of the affluent neighborhoods.

(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 29-Apr-2008 11:37am

Egg-ZACK-ly. This is the kind of thing I wish had been mandatory to me and STUFFED down my unwilling throat when I was a kid. You are SO right!

(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 11-May-2008 8:20pm

I didn't get back to you eariler due to exams and projects. But I am bbbaaaa-ck.

> Psychologists and psychiatrists are not the same.

Fair point.

> The culture isn't so easily explained, but again, in institutions reports are made of
> who was prescribed what, not including things outside their typical
> practice like dietary consulting towards intake of thyroid precursors.

The culture of ANY industry isn't easily explained. At least to outsiders anyway. I've always personally thought that most psychiatrists/psychologists tend to come off a bit as weird. Almost as if THEY are the ones who should be suspected of being crazy. Definitely out of touch. Well, thats just me, but I am off my rant again.

> Doctors don't have time to research, hence those ads "Tell your doctor
> about Brainhopia!". Psychiatrists may charge more for talk then a
> bottle of pills, but pharmaceuticals are a mega-billion industry with
> centralized hooks everywhere.
>

I am more inclined to attribute over-prescription to incompetence than conspiracy.

> with centralized hooks everywhere.

Care to cite examples?

> "trained psychiatrist usually need hours an end to get a good picture
> of any individual"
> - Not only that, but potential employees probably don't want to be
> databased with any discriminatory criteria, like a preference to work
> barefoot and spend their time in brainstorming meetings at a coffee
> bar.
>

That too. Actually, the whole setup smells like a lawsuit waiting to happen (and rightfully so).

> "but doesn't the whole idea of smug self-appointed gurus who decide
> where everyone should work sound a bit creepy"
> - It's not like a 'psychic' prediction. Clearly it's a trend which
> increasingly includes both HS guidance counselors and R departments
> meddling in peoples lives with the latest personality profile tests.

Those stupid tests in high school generally were meant to be taken as a guideline.

> Grade schools actually get financial compensation now for having teachers
> report pharmaceutically treatable disabilities in students. Testing
> and medication compliance are becoming increasingly compulsory.

True. Hym. Where's LJD when you actually need her.

> I wouldn't be surprised
> if video games of the future were connected online to hiring databases,
> covertly evaluating skill propensities.
>

This being a lawsuit waiting to happen notwithstanding, think of the PR fall out when this leaks. Maybe in a 100 years, but todays culture is VERY resistant to this type of thing. Anything that undermines people's sense of rugged individualism won't fly.

> ..and again "but doesn't the whole idea of smug self-appointed gurus
> who decide where everyone should work sound a bit creepy"
> Forty years ago we didn't go through agencies at all to land interviews,
> you just walked in when an ad interested you. You don't think your
> headhunter has already ruled you out submitting you for the job you'd
> like as golf caddy because they've determined for you that more money
> made with your accounting class skills (for you and them) outweighs
> your desire to be outside?
>

How is this a fair comparison. People actively choose to major in account to be--- wait for it ----- accountants. In fact, people generally major in something which is a not-so-suddle indicator that they are interested in that field. Theres no psychologists lurking in the background looking for "hidden clues" here.

> "I guess the next step is a board dedicated to arranging marriages
> based on psychological profiles."
> Haven't you heard of online match-making services yet?

Yes, I HAVE heard them. I was awaiting for you to make that point. You're very predicable and easily read by others.

> If you ask me, they don't have psychological profiling sufficiently
> down yet at all, but I'm sure they're working on improving that.

More like they're working on improving the perception that they have their profiling down. Lets look at it from a slightly more cynical viewpoint for a second (work with me here).

Matching services are a BUSINESS. They're in it to make a profit. Their customers are a special demographic. Bluntly put, the type of person who would be interested in such a product would be the type of person that doesn't have a lot of confidence in their own ability to make their own decisions for them and a high confidence in the ability of some algorithm to do their thinking / instincts for them. (Or just really desperate) They're actively making the choice to not make a choice (which ironically is a choice itself). Off course, ask yourself:

How does one market to such people? Well, its probably not too much a stretch to argue that their success is really a plesebo effect. You tell people "I have this magic algorithm", why not give it a try, run a script that runs a lot of " match = { int i = rand () * hetro_female.count, int i = rand () * hetro_male.count } and voila. The user will think there's science involved so they hookup will work via being a self-fullfilling prophecy. Am I the only one who sees that one coming a mile away? Otherwise our society is fudgeed and I should seriously start looking into a new business opportunity.

> "means you're basically taking career advice from a guy whose career
> is a high school guidance councilor"
> That may be one of the more demanding jobs on the planet, though clearly
> it doesn't pay much. It could suggest though that they might not consider
> income as a criteria when offering career advice.
>

You clearly don't seem to understand the concept of a joke.

Yeah, I get it. They work hard, blah blah blah. They're serving others and whatnot. I am not disagreeing there. The point of the joke doesn't have anything to do with money. The joke, since you didn't get it is: "Guidance councilors tend to be made of by high school kids. They're the guy you go see because you had the foresight to fake grief in order to get out of detention. They're they guy who makes those cheesy public service announcements over the intercom in home room. Basically, they're Mr. Makey from South Park."

Seriously, do you suffer from Asperger's or something? [hey, I just realized, this survey is about Asperger's. I totally forgot the original topic of this survey, go figure].

But joking aside.....

> "Theres already a thing for that. Its called monster.com"
> Last I looked at such sites half a dozen years ago, hoping for psychological/culture
> matching headhunter websites, they had no such features in place.
>

For a psychological/culture matchmaking, ask someone who works there to give you a tour to see hows the corporate culture like. Orrrrrr, word of mouth, networking, is generally the way to go. There's always off course Google [the search engine, not the company].

> Could they even identify if the people you would be working
> with are upbeat or cynical, and zealously take their jobs personally
> or try to forget them when they get home.

One small problem. No one WANTS to be associated with the adjective cynical. Yes, I may brag about it here anonymously, but generally theres a stigma attached to it. No company wants to be labeled cynical, but everyone will want to get the "upbeat" label, true or not. So here, you would be relying on self-appointed 3rd party referees who figure out who gets what label? See the problem? [hint hint, litigation, hint hint]

Are the people there more
> productive in the morings or afternoons. Do they prefer meetings or
> quiet. Is the workflow highly predictable or highly spontaneous. How
> is employee dating treated? How do the contractors get along with
> permanent staff. Do they mind contractors meeting outside work to
> form personal enterprises. Do the guys discuss sports and stocks or
> something else? Is the dominant mindset academic, engineering, administrative?
>

Why not go there and DIRECTLY ask these questions. Talk to the bosses, employees, HR department about it. They'll gladly tell you everything you need to know.

> Oh good grief. If my tone with you sounds any different, it's because
> I thought I was still talking to Galmorro. That explains why he pulled
> such a lycanthrope attitude change, or for that matter changed his
> position on desiring psychological-disability aware job counselling.
> I can't say my tone tone was all that different. I fell into standard
> rebuttal mode, just a bit more openly accomodating than surgically
> strategic.
>

Hym. I just inadvertently pissed someone's mood "this" morning. Sweet.

(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 11-May-2008 8:24pm

I've also run into people offended by the poor trying to sneak into their schools because they were 'too cheap' to pay higher property taxes of the affluent neighborhoods.

Wow, something we agree on. Yeah, this is exactly the kind of thing the feds should step in and regulate. Normally I am not a huge fan of the feds intervening with their poorly planned attempts at leveling the playing field, but this one area they should.

(reply to southernyankee) posted 13-May-2008 4:40am

"I've always personally thought that most psychiatrists/psychologists tend to come off a bit as weird. Almost as if THEY are the ones who should be suspected of being crazy. Definitely out of touch. Well, thats just me, but I am off my rant again."

You, I, and many others concur with this observation. My guess is that the field often attracts those with significant deficits themselves, and take up a path of discovery they can make a career of as well.

"I am more inclined to attribute over-prescription to incompetence than conspiracy."

It's a combination of both, lazy or incompetent doctors (or those working under institution guidelines), and the conspiriatorial plans of pharmaceutical mfgrs (which aren't really much more conspiratorial than selling coffee).

> with centralized hooks everywhere. "Care to cite examples?"
I listen to so many petty examples on a regular basis that none come to mind, but it seems they concur with what my psychitrists at mental health practice, and the experiences of my niece in grade school. Basically, besides the obvious hooks in the advertising industry, their hooks include financial incentives for schools and institutions to prescribe more. They also have a fairly significant political lobby to weed out non-pharmaceutical options and bolster sales through public policy.

I would imagine that they also have a heavy sales rapport with medical insurance firms too, such that it's easier for a doctor to get a payment clearance for a prescription than for non-phramaceutical therapeutical services.

"
> "trained psychiatrist usually need hours an end to get a good picture of any individual"
> - Not only that, but potential employees probably don't want to be databased with any discriminatory criteria, like a preference to work barefoot and spend their time in brainstorming meetings at a coffee bar.
That too. Actually, the whole setup smells like a lawsuit waiting to happen (and rightfully so).
"

How so? Over being miscatalogued? I would think so too. That goes along with my point, not that I don't think it would be a worthwhile system in a friendlier world.

" > I wouldn't be surprised if video games of the future were connected online to hiring databases, covertly evaluating skill propensities.
- This being a lawsuit waiting to happen notwithstanding, think of the PR fall out when this leaks. Maybe in a 100 years, but todays culture is VERY resistant to this type of thing. Anything that undermines people's sense of rugged individualism won't fly.
"

We adapt to this sort of thing all the time. Ten years ago people would have been freaked out by ads being chosen by our html content. Heck, 15 years ago people were freaked out by spell-checks as intrusive. Our credit companies know our buying habits, friends, and subject interests. It's no big leap for employment agencies to share the same data.

"How is this a fair comparison. People actively choose to major in account to be--- wait for it ----- accountants. In fact, people generally major in something which is a not-so-suddle indicator that they are interested in that field. Theres no psychologists lurking in the background looking for "hidden clues" here."
If you chose to be an accountant, fine. I had a dual major of art and computer science, and some of my headhunters were pissed that I chose the title 'Art' rather than 'CS' for my degree. I stopped dealing with such agencies, as it was clear that money and their cut was their only interest, and that artistic computing jobs wouldn't particularly make the cut for their selection of options, nor would they be any good at conveying my artisitc abilities to any employer who was interested in an artistic temperament.

Limiting one as a candidate to only the major they chose is a huge limitation. I developed a major disappointment during my own headhunter experience period with how society at large hired. For instance I'd go to a store that specialised in Betty-Boop, and the person running the store could really care less about Betty-Boop, and probably knows 2% of what I know on the subject. What annoyed me was that this person possibly enjoyed golf, while somewhere there is probably a golf-caddy who could care less about golf, but is quite the expert on Betty-Boop. This scenario would have been less prevalent in the days before agency placement (where 10-key math, not an interest in vintage animation got that person their sales job).

"The user will think there's science involved so they hookup will work via being a self-fullfilling prophecy. Am I the only one who sees that one coming a mile away? Otherwise our society is fudgeed and I should seriously start looking into a new business opportunity."

What, you don't believe a somewhat accurate matching algorithm could be invented?
Anyhow, you're not being cynical 'enough' with your perception of profiling success, otherwise you'd realize it's in their sustainable interest to offer the continued perception of likely success in combination with offering the minimal success tolerable (you want repeat business, after all).

"You clearly don't seem to understand the concept of a joke."
I'm often accused of that. The fact is I instantly get the intent, don't think much of it, and move on to attempt making some substantive use of the content.

There are also times I instantly get jokes, don't really find anything funny in it, then move on to considerably more complex interpretations, figuring I must have missed something. Either way it amounts to my rarely reacting to common jokes. I didn't think that would be evident over the internet though. The jokes I do actually enjoy are of a very obscure mind-bending nature which most people wouldn't get.

I don't laugh just because someone else finds something funny. I don't even want to be in the same room with someone who appreciates bathroom humor. That's one I don't get, particularly when enjoyed by people who are otherwise intelligent.

"For a psychological/culture matchmaking, ask someone who works there to give you a tour to see hows the corporate culture like."

Well duh, obviously. The question was whethar their database service could find you the appropriate environment in the first place. There might be 3000 companies potentially hiring accountants across the state. You can't go visit them all to find the one with the disco or hydroponics interests present which make it an ideal fit. People should be able to use databse tech to find the most fitting job. Currently, business culture is more like just the final make-or-break criteria, dependant on how desperate employer and employee are for any fit at all.

"So here, you would be relying on self-appointed 3rd party referees who figure out who gets what label? See the problem? [hint hint, litigation, hint hint]" - Alas, a good point in this world. On the other hand how much lawsuit could an agency get for labelling your company as having a morbid atmosphere, and sending it's upbeat applicants elsewhere. The agency is under no contractual obligation to fill jobs, nor is their data public. The upbeat companies and employees matched together are a success for the agency, and those morbid employees sent to morbid agencies aren't worse than mixing things up and ruining it for everyone.

Computer matching is being way under utilized if it's only used for matching technical criteria, when it could be used to spare a person from 200 interviews or settling with a less optimum work environment match.

Even before I changed genders (for more creative-director flir reasons), at my last 9-5 IT salary job, my co-workers were suggesting (unprovoked) that I'd be much happier moving to Hollywood where my work culture was. There were probably places I would have fit in well in SF too though, but not much means of finding them. Specific computer skills were the only advertised parts of job offerings, but except at really sucky companies, that's not all that matters in the long run.